The Predicate

The Danish Cartoons Controversy

When I first read about the controversy over the portrayal of Prophet Mohammed in a Danish cartoon, I thought it was an unintentional gaffe and the issue would soon blow over. Looks like that is not the case. There were more developments today that makes matters worse.

What happened is this: A Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, printed a set of a dozen cartoons featuring Prophet Mohammed, some of them showing him as a terrorist. This was back in September. There were protests as the news slowly spread. The Danish Imams called for government censorship. Ambassadors of Muslim countries, Arab States, Pakistan and Iran complained about the cartoons to the Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Had the newspaper apologized quickly, the issue would have ended there. But the Prime Minister turned to be a defiant person, refusing to bend to the pressures from the Muslim world. The timeline of what happened from then on, from the BBC:

Today, two major European newspapers have printed the drawings again. From the Guardian:

Newspapers in France, Germany, Spain and Italy yesterday reprinted caricatures of the prophet Muhammad, escalating a row over freedom of expression which has caused protest across the Middle East.

The front page of the daily France Soir carried the defiant headline: "Yes, we have the right to caricature God," and a cartoon of Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim and Christian gods floating on a cloud. Inside, the paper ran the drawings.

The centre-right Die Welt also ran the caricature on the front page, reporting that Muslim groups had forced the Danish newspaper to issue an apology. It described the protests as hypocritical, pointing out Syrian TV had depicted Jewish rabbis as cannibals. Yesterday Roger Köppel, editor-in-chief of Die Welt, said he had no regrets. He told the Guardian: "It's at the very core of our culture that the most sacred things can be subjected to criticism, laughter and satire. If we stop using our journalistic right of freedom of expression within legal boundaries then we start to have a kind of appeasement mentality. This is a remarkable issue. It's very important we did it. Without this there would be no Life of Brian."

For those interested in seeing the cartoons in question, I found them online at the Brussels Journal. The front page of France Soir that says we have the right to caricature God is here.

That was not the end of it. Today, immediately after the newspapers reprinted the cartoons, the editor of France Soir was fired! From the Brussels Journal, which has comprehensive coverage on the issue:

Raymond Lakah, the owner of the French newspaper France Soir, has sacked Jacques Lefranc, the paper’s editor. Yesterday France-Soir republished the twelve controversial Danish Muhammad cartoons (see them all here, halfway down the page). Mr Lakah declared: "We express our apologies to the Muslim community and to all the persons that were shocked by the publication of the cartoons."

My views: I think there are two main points to be debated in this issue. One is where does freedom of speech end and slander/hurting sensibilities begin? If Muslims believe that Prophet Mohammed should not be depicted, and such an action will hurt their sensibilities, why go do it? We are so careful about racial taunts, we don't use the n-word since it will offend African-Americans. We condemn stereotypical descriptions or offensive words when it comes to race. Should we give the same level of importance to religious sensitivities? Or, are religious taunts different from racial taunts? It is always possible to argue that every statement will potentially offend someone or the other, so freedom of expression should override any such consideration. I can go along with that line of thinking, but common sense dictates that one should stay away from contentious issues like saying the n-word or depicting Mohammed.

The second point is the quagmire that the global Jihad has fallen into. The Islamic radical extremists have escalated this issue, literally begging for a backlash and public outcry. Had they just politely asked for an apology, they would have probably gotten it and the issue would have ended there. With bomb threats and boycotting Danish goods and fatwas and other potentially violent means, they have pushed people to respond. Now, many more images of Mohammed will show up, public will be more defiant (as people just love to demolish sacred cows). More websites will carry these cartoons. Bloggers are already pointing out that the Islamists don't mind showing Jews and Christian symbols in bad light, so they will return in kind. The European Union is getting involved, taking up the ban on Danish products to the World Trade Organization. It is a no-win situation really.

Update (2/2/2006):1. Jyllands-Posten chief editor Carsten Juste said: "They have won. That is the sad fact. "I guess that during the next generation no one in Denmark will draw the Prophet Mohammed." News 24
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak warned that the insistence of European newspapers on printing the cartoons risked provoking a terrorist backlash, as the protests escalate from a trade embargo by consumers. "European provocations have placed the offices and European churches in our line of fire," the Palestinian gunmen said in a statement. "We give the Danish, French and Norwegian governments 48 hours to present their apologies." Middle East Online

Local search The Danish Cartoons Controversy

Google search

Comments:

Read wikipedia post on this (in news on right column) to know the reason cartoons were published in the first place. It was to protest against precisely this Islamic facsism which we are seeing now. Also read latest 4-5 articles on this blog http://muttawa.blogspot.com/ to see why this (protest) is wrong. It's not about offending religion, it is about Soudi Arabia and other Muslim countries dictating Sharia Law to a small country of "non-believers" (D0enmark) where these laws are not applicable at all.

if the muslim believe prophet mohammed is real prophet of God, why do they have to worry of criticism, distorted cartoons, false representation or misinterpretation. are they guilty conscious that they have to seek revenge, riots, burning or killings to show that they are reproach of all blame. eye for eye or tooth for tooth, islam has been hijack and held hostage by extremists of islamic faiths which is very prevalent and widespread. is islam a religion of tolerance, peace and life saving of souls from hell. the opposite might be true if violence continue.